The underlying point which I am prepared to defend, however, is that this was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. There was no credible security rationale for the war (evidence: none was produced). The deadline was a deadline of our choosing; we could have set a later one if we'd wanted.

Given that it was a war of choice (and given that people high up in the administration had been thinking about it seriously for years), it damn well ought to have been planned and executed better than it was. I could clearly see the present clusterf'ck coming at the time I wrote the original posts, and so could anyone else with eyes in their head. So my position was clear; I'm in favour of wars of necessity as and when the need arises [1], but only in favour of wars of choice if I think they're being handled well.

I massively disagree with your assertion that "most of the decisions are made by the folks on the ground". Quite simply, the decision about the number of troops to send, isn't. And from that original sin, much else flows.

[1] This is retrospective; I in fact wasn't in favour of Afghanistan at the time but looking back think I probably should have been.

When Matt says "the fact that he’d botched everything else he’d ever done" what he means is, "He is a Republican and I'm a partisan hack."

Indeed, if Clinton had made these decisions these same people would be telling us it was God's gift from heaven that Bill was saving us from Saddam.

To say that France, Germany and Russia would back this decision later is disingenuous folly. The U.N. had 12 years. It is hard to make the case that 6 more would make an appreciable difference. If anything it would make it harder.

And when would the U.N have truly been motivated? After an event that would make it "too late." Then these same partisan hacks would be bashing Bush for not "doing more."

sigh.

It's just more of the same.

I did not have a blog in those days, but you have my word of honour as a gentleman that I was horrified and violently critical of both the Sudanese and Balkan adventures of Clinton. Also, fairly uniquely in the European left, I am under no illusions about the usefulness, competence or good will of the UN, who have been AFIACS a disaster everywhere they've sent a peace-keeping force.

Fair enough on the Bush is a moron business, although your argument still takes a version of that. For months leading up to the war, I thought it was indeed a war of choice and thought it unnecessary. The WMD argument ultimately sold me, especially once it was revealed that the DPRK had nukes and, once possessed, we had no good options left. At that point, sooner rather than later seemed the way to go.

The only UN peacekeeping ops of value that come to mind are Mozambique in the mid-1990s and the Sinai multi-national force and observers mission that followed Camp David. They're not totally worthless, but damned close, as a military organization.

I'll take you at your word. If I lumped you in the pile of "Bush hating partisan hacks" too quickly, let me apologize.... There just seems to be so damned many of them... ;-\

P

There was no possibility of regime change in Iraq (short of Saddam having a heart attack while with his mistress or other "natural cause/act of God"). Thus, war was the only option to enact the stated position of both the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations. Having brought in large numbers of troops just to obtain access for Blix and his bunch, US options were to keep them in place indefinitely (not palatable to the Saudis and not practical for the Kuwaitis, and at a cost to our military pretty similar to what we paid for invasion while getting virtually nothing in return), pull the troops out (handing Saddam a victory and likely emboldening him for the future) or going forward with an invasion.

---